|Does art exist?
|Page 2 of 3|
|Author:||Chris Johnston [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:10 am ]|
|Author:||Attila Soos [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:30 pm ]|
|Author:||Attila Soos [ Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:50 am ]|
Here is Oldenburg's "Clothespin" in Philadelphia.
It is the exact replica of a clothespin. Just like the Urinal, a clothespin is not supposed to be art.
If you look long enough, you may realize that the two halves of the clothespin are two people, embracing or kissing each other. The metal clip holding the halves together are the couple's arms.
Is this art, or is it a clothespin? It cannot be both. The creator of the original clothespin never thought about this, when he or she created it.
If art can be defined, how do you define art in this case?
The embracing couple doesn't exist. It's all in our imagination.
To a person with no imagination, this is a clothespin, and there is no art here. To another person with imagination, the couple is obvious, and this is magnificent art.
Do you see how subjective this is? As you said, something that is art for others is not art for you (the Urinal). That's exactly the case.
|Author:||Chris Johnston [ Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:03 pm ]|
Thanks for your continued engagement on this topic. There is a world of difference between "Clothespin" and "Fountain." "Clothespin" required thought and skill on the part of the artist, input from an actual human intellect. "Clothespin" is also altered somewhat from just being a giant copy of a clothespin. That is is art cannot be seriously argued.
"Fountain," on the other hand, had no skill applied to it, no artistic input except for the artist to be bold enough to rename it and call it art. That piece smacks more of a rude joke than art. But the subjectivity of art critics has swallowed the joke, hook, line, and sinker.
To take this line of thought to an absurd and crude extreme (but delicately, always delicately), with this type of amorphous and undefinable category for art, both I and a famous artist could defecate in a mason jar and place it in an empty room, and call it an installation. The famous artist's would be called art, and mine would be called crap. (Well, not always so delicately!) And that situation would be complete nonsense and an insult to viewers and critics.
Do not think that I wish to place my tastes in the stead of a good, objective, working definition of art. I know art when I see it, and it doesn't matter if I like it or not.
|Author:||Attila Soos [ Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:13 pm ]|
|Author:||Chris Johnston [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:47 pm ]|
|Author:||Will Heath [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:38 pm ]|
|Author:||Chris Johnston [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:19 pm ]|
|Author:||Will Heath [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:25 am ]|
|Author:||Chris Johnston [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:26 pm ]|
|Author:||Attila Soos [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:02 pm ]|
|Author:||Sakari Matikka [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:02 am ]|
Not really replying on the original post, but taking part to the conversation about "Fountain, to be Art or not to be Art".
"A traditional fountain is an arrangement where water issues from a source (Latin fons), fills a basin of some kind, and is drained away."
According to that, the urinal which Duchamp has taken out of it's context and named the piece as Fountain, matches quite nicely, thou this fountain has dried out. The funnier thing is that the same explanation applies to us as "the source" when taking a piss to a urinal in it's original place.
Ok, it's funny, but thou it is funny, I don't consider it as a joke. One thing I could consider a joke, is a sterile toilet with 10 urinals in line and us beeing kind of uncomfortable in that situation trying to do our thing.
|Author:||Attila Soos [ Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:25 pm ]|
A few days ago I was reading Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and I've made a connection between the objectivist theory of a product's value, and artistic value (Objectivism is a philosophical school of thought, attributed to Ayn Rand).
The idea is that a product's value always depends on the person who uses it, his education, backround, needs, social status, etc. There is no such thing as an "objective value" of a product, a value that exists outside the person who is involved. A janitor who buys a lipstick, but would not spend her money on a microscope, values the lipstick much more than she values the microscope. For her, the lipstick means the difference between self confidence or wretchedness, but the microscope is worthless to her.
So, the value of a product is set by the individuals who need that product. In the case of the microscope, there are obviously people in the society to whom the microscope is worth a lot, so in the end, the microscope will sell at a much higher price than the lipstick. Our conclusion here is that the value of the microscope is established by a specific group of people who need that product, and who are using that product.
The exact same thing is happening with the objects of art. The value of an art object is established by a select group of people who need it, display it, use it, etc. This select group of people is what we call the "art establishment": critics, high profile sponsors, gallery owners, curators,etc.
The "Urinal" may be worthless for a lot of people. For them, just like the microscope for the janitor, there is no use for it, because they don't see anything in it. But for a select group of people (the "art establishment"), there is a very high value for it. They see something invaluable in it (for reasons that are irrelevant for the purpose of this argument), and therefore the art object becomes extremely sought after.
This is why I believe that the art-ness of a work is established by a select group of the society. This is not done by force, but by the choices those members of the group make. To this group, a certain object of art is very valuable, so they become the standard, and there is nothing that the layman or the rest of the crowd can do about it. The layman has a choice to ignore the object in question, but that will not change the fact that others will pay millions for it, because they deem it invaluable.
There is no such thing as a universal criteria, to establish artistic value, or any value. That's because the concept of value is very different from one group of people to the next one.
People who demand that art should be defined, using one uniform criteria, are denying this basic law of the human society. And the objectivist philosophy recognizes this law very clearly. As soon as we try to impose a uniform criteria on art, we are acting as dictators, denying the rest of the individuals from exercising their own perception of values, based on their own human condition.
This is what happened in societies where one group of people decided to set moral standards: it resulted in totalitarian regimes. Stalin, Hitler, Mao were big fans of such standards.
Setting artistic standards would lead to the same results.
|Author:||Al Keppler [ Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:53 pm ]|
|Author:||Will Heath [ Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:50 am ]|
|Page 2 of 3||All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group